MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205809226 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6590

Association of Daily Sitting Time and Leisure-Time Physical Activity With Survival Among US Cancer Survivors

2022· article· en· W4205809226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSittingPopulationCohort studyCohortNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyGerontologyCancerCancer survivorDemographyPhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Sedentary behaviors, particularly prolonged sitting and lack of physical activity, may influence survival after cancer. OBJECTIVE: To examine the independent and joint associations of daily sitting time and leisure-time physical activity with mortality outcomes among cancer survivors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort of a nationally representative sample of cancer survivors, age 40 years or older (n = 1535; weighted population, 14 002 666), from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007 to 2014. Participants were linked to mortality data from their interview and physical examination date through December 31, 2015. Daily sitting time and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) were self-reported using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Data analyses were performed from January 1 to May 1, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All-cause, cancer-specific, and noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Among 1535 cancer survivors (mean [SE] age, 65.1 [0.4] years; 828 [60.1%] females; 945 [83.1%] non-Hispanic White individuals), 950 (56.8%) reported LTPA of 0 minutes per week (min/wk) during the previous week (inactive); 226 (15.6%) reported LTPA of less than 150 min/wk (insufficiently active); 359 (27.6%) reported LTPA of 150 min/wk or more (active); 553 (35.4%) reported sitting for 6 to 8 hours per day (h/d); and 328 (24.9%) reported sitting for more than 8 h/d. Of note, 574 (35.8%) cancer survivors reported no LTPA with concurrent sitting of more than 6 h/d. During the follow-up period of up to 9 years (median, 4.5 years; 6980 person-years), there were 293 deaths (cancer, 114; heart diseases, 41; other causes, 138). Multivariable models showed that being physically active was associated with lower risks of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.60) and cancer-specific (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70) mortality compared with inactivity. Sitting more than 8 h/d was associated with higher risks of all-cause (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.05-3.14) and cancer-specific (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.08-4.79) mortality compared with those sitting less than 4 h/d. In the joint analyses, prolonged sitting was associated with an increased risk of death among cancer survivors who were not sufficiently active. Specifically, inactive and insufficiently active survivors reported sitting more than 8 h/d had the highest overall (HR, 5.38; 95% CI, 2.99-9.67) and cancer-specific (HR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.60-13.9) mortality risks. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of a nationally representative sample of US cancer survivors, the combination of prolonged sitting with lack of physical activity was highly prevalent and was associated with the highest risks of death from all causes and cancer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it